R
Ray Pendergast
My company is on Excel 97. I have access to 2000, but the majority of users
have 97 and that's the platform I need to work with. I've noticed two
limitations, and they may be related, so I'm asking about them both here.
The immediate situation is a file that has apparently maxed out in graphs
and chart elements in 97. It has 32 different charts, a little under half
track a single series, but the rest track 5 or 6, each using a second axis.
I was in the process of adding the second axis and accompanying axis titles
to the last of these, when I hit a memory wall. I consistently get an
insufficient memory error and Excel shuts down everytime I try to add one
more element to any chart.
I've put this on different machines with more RAM, but the only thing that
makes a difference is using 2000, which, as I've said, isn't a good solution
for us. I can delete things. I got rid of the recently added series,
removing the need for the 2nd axis on 19 charts, but I still can't add any
more chart elements, even after saving the file.
This brings me to my related question. I process a significant amount of
data each week in a series of files. I maintain one file as the template,
just for the formulas and formatting. I add and delete thousands of records
each time I update the data. Over time, the file size grew to over 10MB. I
started a brand new file, and turned it into an actual .xlt, and now the file
sizes each week are one-tenth that size. Someone had explained to me that
Excel doesn't actually get rid of deleted data, that it holds onto the it
somewhere within the file, and that it can actually be recovered with the
right kind of software tool. He drew a parallel to the how an operating
system fragments files, and what the Windows defrag program fixes, while
explaining this.
I'd like to know if there is someone who can confirm this, or better yet,
explain it correctly; and could it somehow be related to my graph-o-matic
file? If there's a way to scrub out all of the deleted junk and free up
"memory" in that file, I'd rather do that, than try to rebuild all of that
data and those charts. In the scenario where I built the .xlt, I couldn't
copy too much from the old version without bringing in something that jacked
up the file size.
Beyond that, does anyone have any other ideas of how I can fix the
insufficient memory problem 97 has? I've considered moving the "bigger"
graphs into a separate, second file and linking them to the first. But
that's a last resort. This data is used by high level executives who didn't
get to their lofty positions by weighing their minds down with such useless
trivia as "computer saavy". If there are more than a few steps to getting
something off their email or a website, it's too complicated and needs to be
summarized better...
Thank you.
have 97 and that's the platform I need to work with. I've noticed two
limitations, and they may be related, so I'm asking about them both here.
The immediate situation is a file that has apparently maxed out in graphs
and chart elements in 97. It has 32 different charts, a little under half
track a single series, but the rest track 5 or 6, each using a second axis.
I was in the process of adding the second axis and accompanying axis titles
to the last of these, when I hit a memory wall. I consistently get an
insufficient memory error and Excel shuts down everytime I try to add one
more element to any chart.
I've put this on different machines with more RAM, but the only thing that
makes a difference is using 2000, which, as I've said, isn't a good solution
for us. I can delete things. I got rid of the recently added series,
removing the need for the 2nd axis on 19 charts, but I still can't add any
more chart elements, even after saving the file.
This brings me to my related question. I process a significant amount of
data each week in a series of files. I maintain one file as the template,
just for the formulas and formatting. I add and delete thousands of records
each time I update the data. Over time, the file size grew to over 10MB. I
started a brand new file, and turned it into an actual .xlt, and now the file
sizes each week are one-tenth that size. Someone had explained to me that
Excel doesn't actually get rid of deleted data, that it holds onto the it
somewhere within the file, and that it can actually be recovered with the
right kind of software tool. He drew a parallel to the how an operating
system fragments files, and what the Windows defrag program fixes, while
explaining this.
I'd like to know if there is someone who can confirm this, or better yet,
explain it correctly; and could it somehow be related to my graph-o-matic
file? If there's a way to scrub out all of the deleted junk and free up
"memory" in that file, I'd rather do that, than try to rebuild all of that
data and those charts. In the scenario where I built the .xlt, I couldn't
copy too much from the old version without bringing in something that jacked
up the file size.
Beyond that, does anyone have any other ideas of how I can fix the
insufficient memory problem 97 has? I've considered moving the "bigger"
graphs into a separate, second file and linking them to the first. But
that's a last resort. This data is used by high level executives who didn't
get to their lofty positions by weighing their minds down with such useless
trivia as "computer saavy". If there are more than a few steps to getting
something off their email or a website, it's too complicated and needs to be
summarized better...
Thank you.